Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 01/01/05 

Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 20:51:57 -0000

Much snipped to try to get back to the physics.

"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:YGBBd.10065$%31.8719@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cr3gdg$uj1$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>> news:FI2Ad.32991$Bw5.29243@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
>> > George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:cqgl0m$u9d$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
<snip>
>> > The point is, that tired light theoreticians usually don't require that
>> > *ALL* the redshift be due to tired light. We try to avoid the trap
>> > that
>> > caught the big bangers.

Next you seem to go back on this but I don't think
it's important at present.

<snip stuff resulting from my typo>

>> Tired light AIUI is suggested to explain only the
>> large scale variation with distance. Obviously
>> gravitational redshift and Doppler due to proper
>> motion add to this. If you are now introducing
>> another factor perhaps you could explain the
>> details.
>
> I am not attempting to introduce another factor. I believe we agree that
> gravitational redshifts and "true" doppler shifts (from real velocity
> differences, not cosmological expansion) are not a factor in tired light
> theories. We have to allow for them in some fashion, but they aren't
> central to the theory.

Above you said that not all the red shift needed to
be due to tired light and suggested this was different
from BB. I agree that gravitational and proper motion
effects are present as well but that applies to BB too
so what did you mean above?

>> All the above say that it should be exponential in theory,
>> but what we are asking is how you turn that into the claim
>> that the exponential has been observed as a result of the
>> paper you cited.
>
> I thought you and Bjoern were being deliberately obtuse, and implying that
> you didn't understand how luminosity (magnitude) could be considered
> distance. I was specifically addressing your statement: "what is observed
> is redshift versus magnitude or some other indirect measure of distance."
> Magnitude is an indirect measure of distance (since the days of Wirtz and
> Hubble). So, we have a curve of redshift vs. distance. And the observed
> curve is exponential. At least within error bars.

As I said to Bjoern, I didn't want to get another topic
going in this thread. I've asked the question and you've
given an answer so I'll leave it to him to pick this up
if he wishes.

>> > Using your data, above, dE/E is about 0.024% per MPc. And every photon
>> > loses about 63% of its energy every 4.2GPc.
>>
>> Actually that is now wrong if you are saying that part of
>> the redshift is due to "plasma fireworks", "expanding
>> galaxies" or whatever. How does the 0.024% split between
>> tired light and these other mechanisms?
>
> That's why I said I'd work with your numbers. Let's keep it simple.
>
> One does not need to have all the answers at the beginning.....

OK, that will let me illustrate how I think Ned's test
applies. I'll essentially throw a strawman at you and
you can then correct the errors in my understanding of
your model and we will see if that solves the problem.

George

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... > {snip higher levels} ... > determine the slope of this relation ("the Hubble constant') proceeded ... > using a chain of distance indicators and observations extending the ... >> The missing link is how tired light predicts the magnitude ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... the Mattig equations relate distance to observables ... > well aware that the redshift-distance curve deviates away from the old BB ... The missing link is how tired light predicts the magnitude ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... versus distance, in a model that explains the ... the measurements ... distance while in a tired light interpretation ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: J.J. Says
    ... 8" 'scope and go looking for magnitude 15 objects. ... You have no reference to distance, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... >> is between speed and distance. ... > linear relationship between redshift and distance at ... > You finally admitted that tired light theories were conceivable in the ... > prior response was the first one after you brought that strawman in. ...
    (sci.astro)